AST. ENGINEER,KSEB V/S N.K NASEEMA,W/O.MUSTHAFA - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Malappuram

OP/03/60

N.K NASEEMA,W/O.MUSTHAFA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AST. ENGINEER,KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2007

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/03/60

N.K NASEEMA,W/O.MUSTHAFA						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
AST. ENGINEER,KSEB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. The case of complainant is that she and her husband jointly owns 47.5 cents of landed property at Pazhamallur amsom desom. That opposite party has drawn an electric line over the property without taking consent from the complainant or her husband. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to remove the electric line from the property of complainant and relocate it. 2. On behalf of opposite party Advocate P.C.Girish has filed vakalath. No version is filed. Due to vacancy of the post of the President there was no sitting of the Forum from 2004 onwards. The case came up for hearing before us on 3-10-2007. Complainant was personally present. Opposite party represented. It was submitted on behalf of opposite party that the subject matter of the complaint is not a consumer dispute, and this Forum has no jurisdiction. On perusing the records it is seen that complainant is not a consumer with respect to the alleged grievance. No service is rendered by opposite party with respect to the alleged drawing of line. Further under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 it is provided in Sec.16 that such complaints have to be preferred before the District Magistrate. We hold that complainant is not a consumer and the grievance is not a consumer dispute. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Complainant is at liberty to move before the proper authority on the same cause of action. Dated this 22th day of October, 2007. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. The case of complainant is that she and her husband jointly owns 47.5 cents of landed property at Pazhamallur amsom desom. That opposite party has drawn an electric line over the property without taking consent from the complainant or her husband. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to remove the electric line from the property of complainant and relocate it. 2. On behalf of opposite party Advocate P.C.Girish has filed vakalath. No version is filed. Due to vacancy of the post of the President there was no sitting of the Forum from 2004 onwards. The case came up for hearing before us on 3-10-2007. Complainant was personally present. Opposite party represented. It was submitted on behalf of opposite party that the subject matter of the complaint is not a consumer dispute, and this Forum has no jurisdiction. On perusing the records it is seen that complainant is not a consumer with respect to the alleged grievance. No service is rendered by opposite party with respect to the alleged drawing of line. Further under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 it is provided in Sec.16 that such complaints have to be preferred before the District Magistrate. We hold that complainant is not a consumer and the grievance is not a consumer dispute. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Complainant is at liberty to move before the proper authority on the same cause of action. Dated this 22th day of October, 2007. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER